Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Thoughts on Rudolph

This was a short response to the Children and Youth Program at the Congregation about how the Rudolph song and story did not connect with our Principles:
As we re-teach the lessons we learned in a new way to our children, we too learn, we come to notice the how the stories  we hear subtly influence our lives. 
I’ll be honest, I never thought much about the Rudolph story.  I saw it as a quaint coming of age story where others realized the potential of another.
But if we are going to create a new world based on our values, where all are valued, not just for what they offer us, but for who they are we have to change our stories. People are not disposable, just because they do not benefit us. All have inherent worth and dignity.
And I ask you to think about the Rudolph story in another way
Perhaps we should rethink our punitive form of punishment for offensives, the whole naughty or nice question. (PPT) In this cartoon you can see Santa adrift on a melting iceberg saying  
“Perhaps I should have been giving all the naughty kids solar panels instead of coal”  Although we all need to be accountable for our actions, if we do not promote healing and reconciliation amongst each other, retribution leads to long term negative consequences for all. 
And lastly, when you think of the reindeer, (PPT) what gender do you imagine in your mind they are. They are often portrayed as male. Yet if you think about their names,
Dasher, DancerPrancerVixenComet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen.  For the most part, really non gendered names. I was really surprised by how much debate there is about this online. But the scientific proof is that male reindeer tend to lose their antlers by the end of October, so if Santa’s reindeer are shown with antlers they are probably female.  So I invite you to shift your perspective about who is pulling Santa’s sled.
I ask you to shift your perspective on what is real and what we have been conditioned to believe.
I ask you to shift your perspective not just on this holiday but all year long away from consumption and towards caring and compassion for others and this planet. 

Friday, September 28, 2018

A Sad Day for America. DON'T GIVE UP - Rev. Jay Wolin - Thoughts on the Kavanaugh Hearing


There are days that I hope for a God of Judgement. Until that time arrives, if it arrives, it is up to us human beings to see the work of justice be done on this earth. I sat riveted listening to Dr. Ford’s and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony.  First, I have to say, as a man, I am tentative to speak about this.  I feel this is a time to lift up womens’ voices. As a minister though, I feel it is my religious responsibility to use what ever moral authority I have to shed light on the issue and to raise the consciousness of whoever will listen. Throughout my life, first just as a compassionate listener and now as a minister, I have heard women’s stories about harassment and abuse. Earlier this week at a local rally we heard story after story of women harassed and abused by men. And yes, I know men are abused as well, and I do not diminish that, but it is at a much smaller %. And yes, research has shown that a small % of claims brought forth are found to be false. Over 95% of abuse claims are real and true (and a large majority never reported), and personal experience confirms that high %. I therefore believe people and especially women when an accusation is made. And let me assure you that the trauma of such harassment and abuse is devastating and long lasting.  We need to change the moral bankruptcy of men in this world.  This is not a court of law. This is not just for a nomination on the supreme court. This is a court of moral opinion of how we are going to interact with each other as humans.

Changing the culture will require a shift. Men (and women) are enculturated into this machismo misogyny. Every movie with Bogart or John Wayne just grabbing the women and kissing her, makes it seem reasonable to just grab women and kiss them. How many romantic comedies have men stalking women (I think of the movie where he is outside her house with a boombox blasting “their” song) until the women gives in and admits their love.  Men do not see this as harassment. They see it just the way things are. When women try to reject these overtures men often become angry and violent. Time and again when women come forward to authorities they are excoriated and forced  to endure humiliation for coming forward.  

Dr. Ford’s testimony was credible. And I cringe even writing that.  I am someone who has had to give court depositions, and is interviewed often on television. It is nerve wracking and pressure-filled and you have to be precise and it is difficult to do under normal circumstances. I cannot imagine how it must be talking  publicly about a personal trauma. So she was more then credible and believable. She was courageous. She didn’t have to do this. The Republican Senators used an inquisitor who spoke for them when Dr. Ford was on the stand. The Republicans admitted themselves they could not control themselves from saying stupid things. That in and of itself shows their moral bankruptcy.  The inquisitor focused her time asking questions that were clearly trying to trip up the witness and show that this was a bigger conspiracy rather then uncover the truth. Dr. Ford did not fall for the bait, from either Republican or Democratic lawmakers (as they tried to get her to expand her story). She told her truth and should be believed.

Judge Kavanaugh’s uncontrolled (or crafted) emotional outbursts, his refusal to answer some questions, his obfuscation of other questions, and his partisan attacks shows me a number of things. One he is denying the mistakes of his youth, but worse, he has not learned from them. He thinks he can just bully people and thinks that is acceptable attitude. Second, his temperament and partisanship should be a disqualifier. The fact that he has lied several times and his papers are being hidden, tells me he is not a trustworthy person. He has no empathy for others, as shown by his unwillingness to even shake the hand of the parent of a child killedd by gun violence at the hearings. He doesn’t see that the things he does are harassment. He yelled at and attacked the woman Senator who asked him a difficult question about whether he ever blacked out. He thinks it is ok to yell at senators who are questioning you for a job. Yell, attack and then cry when you are challenged.  That is the misogynist way. He particularly twitched and was evasive when Sen. Kamala Harris questioned him (A woman of color).  When people are in power, or have power over others, it is rare that they give it up willingly. And they fight every time when that power is challenged. The anger we saw from Kavanaugh yesterday and the anger we saw from Republican lawmakers (who finally found their voice to speak to Kavanaugh – I guess it is ok to say stupid stuff amongst men) was this rejection that someone would reject their power over them. In the 19th century we had to have a civil war about this. Instead of looking for truth, instead of showing compassion, they condemned, and by so doing they have fallen short.   

The committee will approve Kavanaugh.  Jeff Flake is the one who has fallen the farthest from God. The other Republicans are unabashed misogynists. Jeff Flake tries to pretend that he is compassionate and reasonable, but in the end Flake votes for Kavanaugh’s approval. He votes for cutting taxes, he votes to cut social programs that will help those who are suffering. He has fallen the furthest because of his duplicity and thus he will end up in the lower levels of hell (if there is a hell or else he will be in long term remediation class in heaven or reincarnated as a mosquito.)  We have a President who has been on tape bragging about sexually abusing women. He and the people he appoints are hostile to women’s health issues. They are not arbiters of good morality.

The question is what are we going to do about it. If the law will not protect women, how can women protect themselves. How can we support them. It is the question people of color and poor people have to answer every day as well. Yes, I was riveted by the testimonies yesterday. It was like watching a car wreck. It was horrible and I couldn’t take my eyes off it. But unlike car accidents this was not an accident, it is an avoidable and changeable tragedy. For me It is important to witness the tragedy, and it is important to speak about the tragedy, so that we can find a new way. Create a new way.
Women, all harassment and abuse survivors, I hear you. I know you are in pain. And I commit to lift up your voices, I commit to work to end the patriarchy that destroys so many lives, and limits so many souls from flourishing, and ends love. I have to work hard not to let love die in my soul, when these events happens. I am human. I have my own failings. I get discouraged, I have had my own tragedies. I take time to look within myself and see what can I do or not do to help make things better.  Ending the patriarchy is not being anti-man. It is to end men’s control over women. That can be freeing for men as well, but certainly and mostly it is about justice for women. 

As a religious leader, it is my role to speak the truth and to espouse a vision of a better way to be in community even if those in power do not agree. I also know it my role to lift up hope and the possibility of a world based on compassion and love. One of the greatest gifts Unitarian Universalism has given me is that it opened my mind, and then my heart to hearing other people’s stories and perspectives by being in relationship with them in a covenanted community.  It is hard to let go of old ways of thinking. But since I had covenanted to be in right relationship with people I learned to listen and to change and grow. I believe it can happen for others and the world. It is why I became a minister. To share that message that love, compassion, hope and change is possible. It may not be today, it may not be in my lifetime, but I will do my share in my time to bring that about, in every small and large way I can in the here and now,  and I ask you to do so as well. Do not give up. DO NOT GIVE UP. Do not sit back. The old ways are dieing, but they are not going quietly or peaceably as we saw on display at the Kavanaugh hearings. And the patriarchy seems intent on taking everyone down with them before they change. All good people need to join together and listen and believe and act together. I hear you, I believe you. How can I help you change the world.

Friday, August 03, 2018

Shabbat Service Reflection at 2018 General Assembly


The Torah portion for today is such a challenging reading as well as a telling one for us as individuals as well as congregations and as an association. The book of numbers tells the story of the Jewish people  wandering in the wilderness after achieving their freedom from slavery in Egypt. They were searching for their homeland continuing the story from the book of exodus. Throughout the journey in the wilderness there is a constant what the Bible calls murmuring, we might say complaining. There was an insurrection that was violently put down, and at one point even Aaron and Miriam challenged Moses for leadership. Even after Moses learned to delegate authority, people struggled with any form of hardship, even proposing going back to Egypt. It is natural to fear the unknown, Some people prefer the harshness but certain existence of how things were, but we if we are to be who we were meant to be we have risk a little uncertainty.
Different then the book of exodus when God was very forgiving to the people when they murmured, In Numbers God was willing to wipe out the people due to their complaining . The only thing that saved the people from God’s wrath was Moses holding fast to the hope for the people.  But even Moses (just like ministers occasionally) gets frustrated, with the people complaining and strikes the rock instead of talking to it to provide the water to save the people.  For this Moses is banned from ever entering Israel. Lets give Moses a break ok, He was working 70 hours a week, preaching and teaching and probably even creating a newsletter on tablets for the people. Now we can look at this story as how a large group of nomadic people learned to govern themselves, that is probably some truth to that.
But I see a beautiful story of overcoming insurmountable obstacles it is the story of sticking with it, it is the story of despite doubt and hardship continuing to move forward.  
I have to admit, growing up Jewish in the Bronx in NYC, I did not have a lot of experience with the physical wilderness. I hate to perpetuate stereotypes but My idea of wilderness was going to the Bronx Zoo.  Now my wife Jan on the other hand grew up camping her entire life. So after we dated a while she suggested we try camping for a weekend.  And being the willing suitor that I was I agreed.    After we had procured all the proper equipment for tent and fire building and the mandatory marshmallows, we headed out on the highway to unknown territory.
Then it started to rain….and then it started to rain harder. I’m talking Noah and the flood kind of rain.
I saw this as a sign of impending doom,
but I hung in there.  We finally make it to the campground and check in and as I get back into the car to drive to the campsite, mind you it still pouring down rain, our car is stuck in the mud.
But I remained calm, and I still hung in there.
I said to myself, I’ve seen something like this on tv. 
I can handle this.  That will impress her.   So I start rocking the car back and forth and then I tell jan to hit the gas and you guessed it, as the car lurches out of the mud all the mud just flies all over me head to toe.  At that point, I swallowed whatever little pride I had left and said we are going to a hotel tonight. But I washed myself off, hung in there and came back the next day and put up the tent in the rain and Jan created a fire in the rain which really impressed me.  I spent the rest of the weekend communing with nature and had a wonderful time. Maybe not the land of milk and honey, but it was nice
Sometimes doing new things, learning new things, can be difficult or messy.
It takes us a while to figure out how things work.  We often though when doing new things find a reservoir of skill and determination that we never previously knew we had.  Now for many years thereafter and later on with our children, we went camping often, and things got easier over time,
but it never would have happened it I first hadn’t agreed to go along on the trip into the great unknown and if I hadn’t stuck in there, despite the setbacks, despite the rain, despite the mud.
Sometimes we just have to stick with it and believe that it will get easier and live into that future.
So the wilderness can be seen as a place we need to travel through on the way to our destination, as a test, as a place to receive revelation, as a place to find enlightenment,
            The wilderness does not have to be a physical place but can also be a state of mind. 
Some people do not want to leave the comfort of the status quo, but to find transformation we have to journey into the unknown Its hard, muddy work.  We have to risk getting dirty and being uncomfortable. But this story of Moses and Hebrew people tells us, if we are ever to reach our destination, we need to stick together, even when we sometimes don’t agree with the direction. It may take us longer,  but if we are ever going to fulfill our destiny as a religion we have to stick together, and have faith in each other.
At  the end of this story, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam all die before the community reaches their destination. This message tells me that eventually old ideas and ways have to die if we are going to make room for new ideas, and new ways and new people. That is the hardest thing I think, to leave behind the skills that got us to where we are.
So I encourage you to be open to change, because another truth is the things we need to get us out of slavery, the things we need in the wilderness through the hard times, are not always the same skills we need to create something new.
May our journey bring us wisdom, may it bring us peace, may it bring us healing. I would rather die free in the wilderness with you than be a slave in and to the past. Let us go and find those who are fleeing, let us all gather and let us walk together into an uncertain future, a future where we can build the world we dream about. Let us all find our way home.



Thursday, July 19, 2018

Theology is Boring - (or is it?) thoughts on study leave as I try to distract myself from reading.


I know, I know, I am a minister. Theology is the foundation of my vocation. I am not that type of minister I say. People look strangely at me and wonder, as if their world had tilted off its axis. It is not that I don’t like theology, but most who write about it feel the need to prove how educated they are with multisyllabic words  (see what I did there 😊). I read book after book. In reality it is more like slogging through it. Certainly some of it is my ongoing contemplation and argument with every line that I read. That can be exhausting. Why? How did you come to that conclusion? What does that mean? I debate myself in my own mind before I go  on to the next sentence. It makes reading a book a journey.  

In truth everything is theology. Every walk, every movie, every conversation, every event I attend is a view of the world from a theological perspective. What is the purpose of this or that. What meaning can be derived from the experience. What mystery of the universe can be unlocked from every observation. What is the metaphor of every interaction. It is exhausting and beautiful and just how my radio waves are tuned in. 

But reading one more book of the erudition of Spinoza’s ethics, (which is really just a way for him to hide his atheism) and Augustine’s Confessions (really next time keep it to yourself – its done so much damage just because you had to justify leaving the woman you loved and your son at your mother’s insistence to marry for position and power and that led to ongoing misogyny within the church) or even new challenging perspectives on the Scriptures (How long has it been and we still have not figured out “thou shall not kill” – its pretty simple) will make me catatonic. 

No I want to read a simple poem, see a beautiful flower, pet my cat (I really need to get a dog), roll on the floor with my grandchild, watch the sunset and hopefully rise the next day. This is my theology – Life and living it. (and of course writing and talking about it). Thanks for reading and listening to me. 

Sunday, July 01, 2018

My Speech at Families Belong Together Rally June 30th




My friends I think sometimes our country has lost its moral way.
Then I see you, and I hear these stories.
Let us remember that we determine our fate,
the actions we take or the lack of action is a choice.
I ask you to choose action to side with our immigrant and refugee siblings.
I invite you to side with children and families,
I invite you to side with love.
It seems incredulous, that I have to say we need to take action to side with children and families.
I am thankful that the very first article in this country’s bill or rights states “
Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
Well I have a few grievances with the government. 
Friends it is time to fight for our moral and ethical values. These are my demands

One, We need to end the inhumane practice of this government’s policies of Family separation and Reunite families now.  Plain and simple. This is inhumane, immoral, and the fact that we even have to teach this baseline morality to government officials shows our country has fallen into the moral and ethical abyss. Can we never learn from our past. We separated children from our indigenous siblings, we separated children from our African American siblings when we enslaved them, and now we are separating children from refugee families.
Let us support children, not abandon them,
Let us love children, not traumatize them,
Let us side with children, Let us side with love.

Second, We need to end this inhumane practice of family detention.
The fifth article of the bill of rights says no person, not no citizen, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Children and families deserve due process, not indefinite imprisonment.
Children do not belong in cages and internment-like camps.  
Family incarceration is not the solution to family separation.
It seems the practice of continuing to imprison and destroy families of color from slavery, to jim crow to Japanese American internment camps, to mass incarceration, to now refugee imprisonment continues today.
Give them due process, I ask you to side with love

Third, End ‘Zero Humanity policy of this governement.’ Reverse the policy that created this crisis and chaos to begin with. Parents should not be criminally prosecuted for doing what all parents have done throughout history, which is bring their children to safety.
Let us remain that safe haven for families facing persecution, and let us do what we can to end that persecution, not add to it.  
I ask you to side with love. 

Last for today we demand Comprehensive Immigration Reform
We must have a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million refugees who are already here, our neighbors, part of the fabric of our community, whose children our children go to school and play with, people working hard to build a better life for their families.
That is the dream of America
I invite you to side with love and build that world that we dream about.

So what can we do. We must choose to act!! 
Your showing up here is a start, it tells the leaders of this community and throughout the country where our values are. But it can not end there.

We can and we should continue to communicate with our elected officials asking them to denounce this government’s immoral policies on refugees and to create policies that will create a welcoming community for all.
But that is not nearly enough.

We must vote in November and encourage everyone we know to vote for candidates who support our values. No election has been more crucial to the future of our country. I encourage you to vote with love in your hearts thinking of these children
But it can not end there.

I invite you to Work with local organizations in the community that are doing the work of racial and immigration justice, Palomares, LULAC Moline,LULAC Davenport,  
NAACP Davenport and Rock Island, Quad Cities Interfaith, One Human Family. Progressive Action for the Common Good and Boots on the Ground just to name a few.
Get involved. Locally we can impact our community.
But it can not end there.

If our government officials don’t listen, or continue to obstruct and suppress voting, we may have to take stronger actions. The time is coming again for acts of civil disobedience if our government does not respond to we the people. My congregation has offered to be a sanctuary for refugees. I invite you to talk to your place of worship to do the same or to join the sanctuary coalition helping other religious organization who have and I personally commit to helping you with that. We may have to shut down streets, business, even the government, if they do not listen to the grievances of the people.

Do not be afraid. The work for love is never easy and it requires sacrifice, but it is necessary.
We are fighting for the soul of this nation,
we are fighting for children and families,
and we need to go the distance.

Lastly the most important work we have is to maintain hope in the face of adversity.
We have to maintain hope and have the faith that what we do matters.
Even in the uncertainty, especially in the uncertainty of not knowing how or when change will happen,  we must have the faith that we can build a better world where all are safe. ,
Let us find our way together out of the abyss.
Thank you my friends. May you be blessed and may you be a blessing to others.

Monday, May 28, 2018

Movie Reviews - Black Panther, Deadpool 2 and Han Solo


Black Panther    An 8 out of 10 on the JWO Scale

I wanted to let this one sink in a little. It was in a way, as I observe the reactions to the movie,  a seminal moment in movies for African Americans and as I write that I should say, for all Americans.  This is a superhero movie focused on Africans, staring people of African descent and celebrating African culture. This in and of itself, makes it a movie worth seeing. One of the nice features, is that It showed powerful women, in strategic thinking, military planning,  and scientific leadership positions. It also showed that clearly different tribes with different cultures and custom, lived together within a certain covenant, and it appeared at least that resources were shared among all.  I think the most interesting plot point in the movie was the question of how a people in the diaspora are affected by their experiences in the diaspora, and how that affects their world view compared to people who live in their ancestral homeland. The movie showed a loyalty to nationalism and tribalism, but also dealt with the question of whether to and why we should help those beyond our own borders. It showed the need to honor our ancestors, but not to be bound by their experiences or wisdom. Lastly on the most basic level, it was an exciting superhero movie. If I had one quip with the movie, (and I would welcome feedback on this) it is why would a society that is clearly evolved continue to choose their leader by physical combat and which despite having promoted strong female characters, always seemed to be men. I imagine due to its success, we will see a Black Panther 2 and I for one am looking forward to it and similar movies.

 Deadpool 2. A 4 out of 10 on the JWO Scale

Really, one should know what they are getting into when they go to a Deadpool movie. The story line here was to be generous convoluted. If you have read previous reviews of mine, you know I hate time travel movies. And again Marvel writes defaulted to it in this one. At least the first Deadpool we had the origin story. This one like the first one included overwhelming gratuitous violence. There was of course witty repartee, a couple of new super heroes (domino was cool) and the clever mockery of creating a misfit superhero group x-force (which of course was ruined by time travel) that made the movie somewhat bearable. The mark of the Deadpool movie is the self absorption of the main character and his conversation with the audience. It was unique in the first movie, but by the end of the second movie, I just found it pedantic. The best part of the movie, and I would say the part that made it worth the price of admission, was the scene at the end of the credits (which Marvel is famous for which at this point is annoying that I have to wait, but I do) The ending scene was laugh out loud funny. I mean I literally started guffawing out loud. Plus the closing song was really cool too.

Han Solo – 7 out of 10 on the JWO scale

I liked this.  Not a great movie, but a really good movie that I think fills in the narrative of the Star Wars Universe of movies. We get some of the backstory of Han, as well as his relationship with Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian and the Millennium Falcon. We also find out what the Kessel Run is (if you have watched the Star Wars movies this will make sense.) This was not so much a big screen action adventure epic, as it was a suspenseful caper movie. Throughout the movie I found myself wondering who was allied with whom and who would betray who.   Also the general theme of rebellion against oppression, as well as how oppression co-opts and corrupts people,  was a constant theme throughout the movie. Lando’s robot L3-37 was a breath of fresh air. Without giving away any spoilers, the issue of how artificial intelligence robots and humans interact is also a small feature of the movie. I found the movie thoughtful and enjoyable and  finding out more about characters I have come to learn about over the years was very satisfying.



Saturday, May 05, 2018

Movie Review - Marvel Avengers Infinity War – a 7 out of 10.


I will do my best not to give too many spoilers.  So it was a big picture epic extravaganza with many superheroes and super-villains.  There was witty banter, awesome action sequences, love and tragedy. This gives us all the trappings of a good movie if you like those things. I am just once more going to state my displeasure with time travel plots in movies. Its just always either too easy or too illogical. In general, this concept where Dr. Strange even with time travel cant change the present, leads to the age old theology that our fate is destined. I hate that theology.  The best part of the movie is to see the various characters we have come to see developed over the years come together and interact.  The movie also raised the question of how to live in a world that can not sustain its population with its known resources. It asks how power should be used.  It asks at what point and for what will you sacrifice your personal needs for the needs of the greater whole.  All good and deep questions. Lastly, and a negative consequence of this movie, is that every Marvel movie going forward will be somewhat tainted by what happened at the end of this movie.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Where Hunchbacks Abide - A History of Sanctuary


     From Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame “Finally he made a third appearance on the top of the tower of the great bell; from the thence he seemed to show exultingly to the whole city her whom he had saved; and his thundering voice that voice so rarely heard by any one, and never by himself, thrice repeated with frenzy that pierced the very clouds: Sanctuary, Sanctuary, Sanctuary” 
With the ongoing deportation of United States residents and the movement of many places of worship to provide Sanctuary to these residents to escape deportation, including my own Congregation, I thought I would examine the history of Sanctuary.
     There are some stories from ancient Egyptian and Persian cultures regarding asylum, and my research has shown that in Arab desert cultures, tents were set aside as sanctuaries for a limited period of time. The first formal documents of the conception of Sanctuary harken back to the Hebrew Scriptures – In Exodus, ch 21 v12, the book of Numbers ch 35 and then again in Deuteronomy which is believed to have been written later in the 7th century bce after Israel and Judah fell to the Assyrians. In Numbers, it is written the Lord tells Moses “You shall provide yourselves with places to serve you as cities of refuge to which a manslayer who has killed a person unintentionally may flee. The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger”
     The passage goes on to indicate the creation of six cities. This must be understood in the historical context that murder was personally avenged by a family member of the victim. And it was very specific as the type of murder where someone could enter sanctuary. Only accidental murders without malice would allow one to stay in sanctuary. In the later written Deuteronomy, it is clear that there is more of local judicial system set up. There is a provision that no one can be put to death by the testimony of a single witness. It also provides an appeal process. It states “if a case is too baffling for you to decide….you will appear before the Levitical priest.”  So this put judicial matters under the religious authority. As we shall see later secular vs. religious authority becomes a growing tension throughout history on this issue. There were some other interesting rules in regard sanctuary in Hebrew biblical times. The avenger was allowed to kill the accused if they caught the accused before they entered sanctuary, or if the accused wandered out of sanctuary. The cities of sanctuary allowed time for cooler heads to prevail and allow for justice. The cities were considered places of atonement. Even someone who committed manslaughter has to come to terms with the results of their action. After the High Priest died, his death was considered atonement for the sins of the accused, and the accused could then return to their homes. It is said, that due to this custom, the high priest’s family kept good care of the sanctuary cities so as not to give anyone incentive to try to kill the high priest.  In the Hebrew scriptures there are two notes referring to altar sanctuary in first kings, where those who opposed Kings Solomon’s rule sought refuge. In the end both were executed. So although there was a tradition of altar sanctuary within Judaism, Hebrew Sanctuary tended to be more communitarian.
     Asylum, was also common in the classical Greek period These were centered around temples of various deities. Asylum seekers were asked to perform a supplication, pledged devotion to the demi-god and then could be accepted into their  sanctuary.  It became more about the inviolability of the holy place. In one instance Spartans in search of a person in sanctuary instead of breaking into a Greek Temple, blockaded it, until the criminal starved to death. In the Greece Sanctuary often ended up being abused by a criminal element, and when the Romans came to power they severely limited sanctuary rights throughout their empire.
     With the rise of Christianity the Jewish concept of sanctuary was reflected within the Christian Churches, although it was more focused on the authority of the religious leaders.  Although certainly practiced sooner, the first reference to sanctuary in Christian documents is found in the Theodosian Code of 392.  Public Debtors, Jews, heretics, and apostates were excluded from sanctuaries. Sanctuary seekers could be fed and lodged in the churchyards and the surrounding church precincts.
Roman Emperor Justinian I asserting Roman legal dominance, detailed in the consolidation of roman laws, who could receive sanctuary and restricted sanctuary even further excluding certain categories of crimes and individuals, such as murderers, rapists, adulterers and  tax officials.. Trying to reassert papal dominance,  Pope Leo I declared that “the steward and the advocate of the church should act as an inquisitor and examine all persons seeking sanctuary.” This took the authority away from the holiness of the location and moved it towards the holiness of the church leadership and was the first of many future battles between secular and church leadership.
     In the Synod of Orleans in 511 the Church passed a rule that houses of bishops and clergy, cloisters and cemeteries would be legal sanctuaries, extending the physical space beyond just the Church building. It is important to note that in early Christianity there was less conflict with secular authorities as sanctuary was often used by slaves escaping slave owners. Church leaders often negotiated with slave owners for better conditions prior to their return, arranged the sale of the slave to another owner, and in many cases purchased the slave from the slave owner.  Over time people who sought sanctuary included citizens, debtors, and artisans, and tensions between church and state over sanctuary would mount. Much of the tension depended on who was in power at any given time and their religious allegiance at the time. However in the 8th and 9th centuries in the era of Charlemagne and the Carolingian emperors, required that sanctuary seekers be prosecuted in secular courts. They viewed Sanctuary as a holding place until trial was ready to proceed. Over time, as the Empire fragmented into various monarchies, such monarchs often resisted the Church’s authority.
Sanctuary existed in England under the Anglos Saxons rule, but was always more limited and more political. . In 596 the Anglo Saxon legal code did include a penalty for the violation of the Church’s peace. Alfred the Great in 887 did allow for asylum for three days for anyone accused of any crime in order to negotiate a settlement between parties without violence. Later on Alfred extended the sanctuary for 7 days but without food. Again this was done as a way to encourage both sides to negotiate. Some estimates are that as many as half the crimes in the early middle ages were settled in sanctuary as in the legal courts.
     One unique aspect of English Sanctuary was chartered Sanctuaries by the Government.  In these cases the royal court would grant a charter to a specific church. This was often large churches in big cities. Their Sanctuary rules had complex procedures and the sanctuary was often offered within a mile of the sanctuary location. Thus the concept of the holiness of the location was diminished even further.  William the Conqueror in approximately 1070 although allowing sanctuary added provisions, first limiting the number of times someone could go into sanctuary, requiring restitution to victims and then depending on the crime or number of crimes,  required the sanctuary seeker to leave the province without ever returning.
     During the Plantagenet Kings rule in the 12th and 13th Centuries many chartered Sanctuaries were established. However there was also a consolidation of power over the various lords throughout the land and it limited their abilities to offer sanctuary on their own. In some instances guards were placed at sanctuaries and they were fined if the sanctuary seeker escaped. During this time the policy was created that allowed the sanctuary seeker 40 days to decide whether to surrender to trial or to be exiled from the realm. (It could be longer or indefinite if they were in a chartered sanctuary) If they chose exile they would be given safe passage to a port and would be given 40 days to find a ship out of the country. After 40 days theoretically they could return to their place of sanctuary and start the process again.
     As commercial society increased and the court of law improved within secular society, sanctuary diminished. Debtors became the largest occupiers of sanctuaries. Also many chartered sanctuaries started becoming havens for criminals as a base of operations. Craftsman would use sanctuary to avoid control or regulation by craftsman guilds and to avoid paying taxes. (sort of how business’s use the Cayman Islands) Therefore the sanctuaries became a source black market counterfeit goods.   The church seeing this abuse of the sanctuary privilege, and with pressure of King Henry VII, who also saw many political enemies enter sanctuary,  Pope Innnocent VIII in 1486 issued a papal bull stating that sanctuaries were only to be used to save life and limb and under certain circumstance allowed the King’s army to enter sanctuary and arrest someone
     Henry VIII was the King that hastened the end of sanctuary. In 1530 parliament limited exile options. This was due to Henry’s fear that his enemies would gather with a foreign country and attack him if they were exiled. After the creation of the Church of England and the renunciation of Papal authority in 1534  there was a concerted legal effort to end Sanctuary. 1536 Parliament passed a law that required those in Sanctuary to wear a badge, be branded on their thumb, and prohibited them from carrying weapons and placed them on a curfew.  In 1540 Parliament ended the practice of chartered sanctuaries, and severely limited what types of crimes a local parish could hold someone in sanctuary for. However successive Kings reinstated some sanctuary privileges and it was not until 1604, under King James I that Elizabethan laws of sanctuary were repealed. Even though laws about sanctuary regulations were repealed, in 1624 Ecclesial right to Sanctuary was eliminated entirely by the this statute in the law “And be it also enacted by the authorities of this present parliament, that no sanctuary or privilege of Sanctuary shall be hereafter admitted or allowed in any case. “ It was not until 1983 that sanctuary was eliminated from Catholic Canon law.
     So whereas with the Hebrews we saw more of a communitarian sense of sanctuary, and under Christianity we saw a clerical right of sanctuary which then morphed into a secular regulation of sanctuary, Sanctuary in the United States took a different perspective. In some ways we could view the early American colonies as a form of sanctuary itself from religious persecution in Europe. And although no sanctuary was claimed, many churches felt morally bound to offer sanctuary as part of their work with the Underground Railroad helping slaves escape to freedom. For the first time, Sanctuary became not something from doctrinal law, or ecclesiastical privilege, but rather from individual’s personal moral and religious convictions.
     The first time that Sanctuary was publicly claimed in this country was by the Arlington St. Unitarian Church in Boston when they offered sanctuary to individuals who opposed the Vietnam War.  Many other Unitarian Churches as well as Churches from many other denominations joined in. They knew they did not have a legal basis for this. Sanctuary became more of an act of conscience, for the individual and for the Church. It claimed sanctuary as an act of civil disobedience based on their theological and moral imperative. These acts of personal conscience moved rapidly to college campuses across the country. In 1971 the city of Berkeley California  became the first governmental body to declare itself a sanctuary. Its council declared “to provide a facility for sanctuary for any person who is unwilling to participate in military action and banned city employees including police officers, from aiding the investigation or arrest of anyone protected by the city’s sanctuaries. The FBI did not respect sanctuary and sometimes quickly and other times after a short wait hoping for a negotiated outcome, invaded sanctuary spaces. Most people avoiding the draft were sent to military courts. Some were allowed to enlist and claim conscientious objector status. Most other civilians who provided civil disobedience by blocking authorities were often charged with misdemeanor crimes. No one was ever allowed to bring up the legal defense of religious freedom to claim sanctuary in any court case.
     The next time Sanctuary was claimed in America was during the 1980s. At this time in our Country’s history, there were civil wars and conflicts throughout Central American countries.   After a military coup in El Salvador, many Catholic activists there protested the new government’s oppressive tactics. Excessive violence ensued against protesters by government death squads. Many became aware of this situation due to the assassination of the Catholic Archbishop Romero in San Salvador and the murder and rape of American Catholic missionary nuns in 1980. The increasing violence in Central America led many Central Americans to flee to the United States and eventually on to Canada which had more liberal immigration policies. The American government continued to fight their status as refugees, claiming they were economic refugees, not political refugees. As we know looking back we were secretly arming and supporting anti-communist forces in central America that caused much of the violence. Arizona was the hotspot for this due to it proximity to the Mexican border where many undocumented refugees passed. Two of the leaders of the 80s sanctuary movement were Rev. John Fife of Southside United Presbyterian Church in Tuscan and Jim Corbett a retired Quaker rancher.
     In 1981 the Tuscson Ecumenical Council which Fife headed created a task force to respond to the needs of the refugees, such as raising money for bond and legal fees to help with the asylum process. They soon realized that this was futile in the face of an unflinching Government and had to take further steps. They were part of group that arranged for their transport across the Mexican border started to house refugees  in their Congregations and hide the refugees in their homes.  This spread quickly and over time the number of congregations that offered Sanctuary were over 500 across all religions and denominations throughout the country  23 cities and 4 states passed sanctuary laws granting refugees the right to remain in their locals and forbid local authorities from cooperating with Federal Authorities.
     Rev. David Cherier a United Church of Christ minister in declaring sanctuary did raise the historical basis for it by stating. “This is the time and we are the people to reinvoke the ancient law of sanctuary, to say to the government you shall go this far and no further. This is the time as we are the people fleeing the blood vengeance of the powers that be in El Salvador. We provide a safe place and cry “Basta” Enough!!. The blood stops here at our doors. This is the time to claim our sacred right to invoke the name of God in this place. To push back all the powers of violation and violence in the name of the spirit to whom we owe our ultimate allegiance. At this historic moment, we are the people to tell Caesar, No trespassing, for the ground upon which you walk is holy.”
     I think it is also interesting to note that from a religious perspective at that time in our history the religious right was on the rise and  Ronald Reagan used religious symbolism and religious issues a part of his campaign. Sanctuary was different in America also in part because it focused on a specific issue and not the concept of sanctuary. Sanctuary has also moved from someone being absolved for a sin, or requiring a confession of guilt for a crime, and has become a function to question our country’s morals. I do think there is some connection to overarching reach of the religious right in day to day life that encouraged those with liberal religious values to live them out in the public and political sphere as well.
     In 1985, INS launched a ten-month investigation dubbed Operation Sojourner, which included placing undercover agents in the sanctuary movements. They obtained the addresses of refugees by proposing to bring them Christmas presents.  Later that year based on information gathered by the informants, The US government announced 71 indictments against 16 people In the case  UA vs. Agular and as well indicted two other individuals in separate cases Jack Elder and Stacy Merkt, 
In the United States vs. Elder the court did agree that Elder did meet the religious test burden that his actions were motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, but also found that the government met its burden to demonstrate an overriding interest in protecting its immigration and naturalization system Even so, the jury found Elder not guilty.
All other sanctuary workers were found guilty and most were given suspended sentences or short house arrest. It is important to remember that they were indicted for transporting undocumented workers not providing sanctuary to them. One of the outcomes of these Sanctuary Trials in the 1980s was that it galvanized the public in support of the refugees and led first to them receiving  temporary protected status and finally in 1997 Congress passed the  Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act  which allowed these Central American refugees to apply for permanent residence
     Much of their sanctuary workers’ defense of those centered around their first amendment rights in the Constitution which includes “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”  This was the very first right granted by the Bill of Rights. 
In the Courts this defense over time has had mixed and often contradictory results.

In 1878 the US vs. Cantwell, the United States tried to differentiate religious action from what was subversive to the public good. In this case they found against Mormon’s religious right to practice polygamy.

In 1961 the court ruled similarly in Braunfield vs. Brown when Orthodox Jews challenged the closing of stores on Sundays. The court found that a financial loss due to religious freedom was not enough to change public policy

Yet 2 years later In Sherbert vs. Verner a women who was a Seventh Day Adventist was denied unemployment insurance because she refused to seek jobs that required work on Saturday which was against her religion’s Sabbath. The Supreme Court upheld her claim for unemployment. There was a subtle difference in that she was being asked to violate her belief, whereas the business was not violating a belief by not being open on Sunday. It’s a fine legal line.

In another case where religious freedom was upheld was Wisconsin vs. Yoder where members of the Old Order of Amish objected to mandatory public school citing their religious beliefs. The Amish’s religious rights were upheld

There have been numerous cases using drugs as a religious right. One was people v woody which allowed for people to use peyote in a religious ceremonial practice. Another case Employment Division v. Smith, in which Native Americans’ unemployment was denied due to their use of Peyote. In this case their religious freedom was denied. This may have been in part because their work they were fired from was a drug rehabilitation center.  There has been another case Leary v US  where drug use was claimed as a religious right, but unlike the native American cases, it did not show that its use was used in a ritual way in a sacred place as part of a religious service as it was in the Woody case. So tradition helps.Congress in response to the Smith case created a Religious freedom restoration act to make it easier for people to claim religious freedom. This law was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Also in 1990 there was a case Untied states vs. Lee where the claimant refused to pay taxes due to religious beliefs and the court found against him stating the state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that is its essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest. This case is often cited by those opposing the use of sanctuary.

Another case involving religious freedom was the Bob Jones University against the United states, whereby the courts upheld the denial of the their tax exempt status due to their explicit racial discrimination policies.

More recently in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Christian owners of a private for profit corporation were allowed to deny their employees family planning benefits due to the owners religious preference. 
This combined both religious freedom and a corporations’ right to free speech as allowed under Citizens United.

     So as you can see each case in nuanced and unique. There will always be the challenge of whether the use of the religious freedom test is a slippery slope that makes government laws meaningless and on the other hand the constant denial of religious freedom makes religious freedom illusory. As we see over time Separation of Church and State in harder in practice then in theory.
Some of the the legal issues we face today as to whether these undocumented individuals face risk going back to their home countries, as well as the moral issue of deporting a parent from their children who are citizens. How has the United States created the circumstances that led to their displacement from their home country, and our corporations’ invitation to hire these individuals with little risk to themselves.  The issue of Sanctuary has never been answered by the court, but I imagine at some point soon this will happen.
     Over 1,100 Congregations have currently declared themselves sanctuaries. Much of this is to raise awareness and to provide time for the person in sanctuary to redress their grievances before being deported. . Of the 37 people in public sanctuary in 2017, 9 were able to be released with a reprieve in their residency status. The new Sanctuary movement focuses extensively on keeping families united, especially where families have both documented and undocumented members. With the advent of the possible deportation of recipients of  DACA or deferred action for childhood arrivals who came to this country as children the issue of sanctuary may become even more predominant. Another interesting aspect of the new sanctuary movement is that most churches are publicly announcing when they have someone in sanctuary as a way to provide a shield against harboring laws instituted under the Patriot Act.
     Public sanctuary today is growing. I am not aware of churches having been breached. Sanctuary has been allowed under an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that indicates that
“Enforcement actions are not to occur at or be focused on sensitive locations such as schools, places of worship, unless;
exigent circumstances exist;
other law enforcement actions have led officers to a sensitive location, or
prior approval is obtained from a designated supervisory official.
The policy is intended to guide ICE officers and agents’ actions when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.

Locations treated as sensitive locations under ICE policy would include, but are not be limited to:
Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, pre-schools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities; as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and school bus stops that are marked and/or known to the officer, during periods when school children are present at the stop;
Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities;
Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples;
Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and
During a public demonstration, such as a march, rally, or parade.

ICE officers and agents may carry out an enforcement action at a sensitive location without prior approval from a supervisor in exigent circumstances related to national security, terrorism, or public safety, or where there is an imminent risk of destruction of evidence material to an ongoing criminal case”
      So after hearing this policy there is a lot of leeway that would allow ICE to breach a sanctuary. Much of what prevents them from breaching the sanctuary is the public relations image doing so due to our cultural separation of church and state and the inviolability of  Church building as sacred space. But this is only a written policy and that can change with the stroke of a pen. Victor Hugo wrote “A writer is a world trapped in a person” I wonder what type of world will we create.

Bibliography
Politics and Religion in the United States, By Michael Corbett, Julia Corbett-Hemeyer, J. 
This Ground is Holy – Ignatius Bau
God and Ceaser at the Rio Grande
Sanctuary and Crime in the Middle Ages.
Jewish Study Bible
Various and miscellaneous articles.


Saturday, January 27, 2018

"Old Haunts"

Old Haunts By Jay Wolin
Drove through the old neighborhood today
Stopped by my old haunts
And they are haunted
With memories both good and bad
Memories of growth
Memories of pain
Memories of love
Memories of loss
I must remember
That is all they are
Just memories
That formed who I am
Today
It is good to see old friends
And see where their lives led
And see where my life led me from
And see where our lives are today
For better and worse
So busy going forward
I forget to look back
The past seems more distant
Like a dream I once dreamed
But it was all real
All the friends, foes, guides and interlopers
All the achievements, failures, adventures and missteps
All the wonder, struggle, joy and fear
I can’t put it behind me
I won’t put it behind me
I carry them all with me
Haunted by
What was
What could have been
What still could be.
And all I have is
What is
Today

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Mindful Meandering at the Institute

I have been given a chance to see the impermanence of things and that the changing of life is possible. I feel I have seen a blip in the Matrix. I have walked these halls of the Innisbrook resort before. Then it was business and golf. Now it is with ministerial collegiality and learning. As I see the old white golf members with leathery skin sitting around drinking scotch and talking about their golf game and business deals,  I see the direction I was headed in life and the direction I once wanted in life. Now here I sit in this same place, same building but with different people and a different life. A life that might not have been. I have been given a chance to see a different me, one made possible by opening my heart. Everything is the same but me and the people I surround myself with. And that has made all the difference. Who can say what was right? Perhaps I should have just gone on to make a lot of money and donate it to my Congregation?  Who can say which would have helped more. So I let it go. We make our choices and we live with the consequences, both good and bad. In truth I was always terrible at golf and I don’t drink anymore. Now, I listen, learn, love and try to share what wisdom I have found/find in this world with others. It is a new fuller life, one that might not have been if not for Unitarian Universalism.